Changes in the oral mucosa and general indicators with COVID 19 (SARS-CoV-2): a single-center descriptive study

Abstract

Aim. To study the state of oral mucosa and rationale of its changes in patients with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, moderate severity. Materials and methods.A retrospective single-center study was conducted on patients who were in the infectious diseases department from May to June 2020 with an initial diagnosis of ICD-X: J18.9: coronavirus infection. This study included 90 patients aged 24 to 83 years (52 male and 38 female, average age 53.6 ± 9.7 years).Results. C-reactive protein was increased in 81 individuals upon admission (44.15 ± 31.8 mg / dl). Twenty patients had increased fibrinogen values (average increased fibrinogen values were 5.96 ± 1.6 g / l). The analysis for D-dimer was held in 15 patients (average value 348.6 ± 103.68 ng / ml), 10 people from that with the increased indicators (435 ± Volume 18, 02/2020 Исследование / Scientific researches 24 ng / ml). Hemorrhagic manifestations occurred in 12 (13.3%) patients, whose history was not burdened. Pronounced xeroderma of the facial region and angular cheilitis were detected in 21 (23.3%) patients. In 80 patients (88.8%), an examination of the mucous membrane of the tongue was observed plaque from white, light yellow to brown. In 36 (40%) patients, pigmentation was detected in the area of the attached gingiva on the upper and lower jaws.Conclusions. , changes in oral mucosa are not the primary cause, but appear as a result of drug treatment and disease progression, despite the fact that the oral cavity is one of the sources of entry gates for infection.

Oral Manifestations of COVID-19: Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

“…In groups that contained studies at high risk of bias, the meta-analysis was repeated after removing those studies. Of 10 studies, three reported data on more than one variable ( 18 , 22 , 25 ) and were accordingly included in more than one analysis; while two studies did not report data for any of the three variables ( 24 , 26 ) and therefore, were not included in the calculations.…”

“…In addition, many of the studies did not focus on oral lesions but mentioned these lesions within the framework of a broader study on mucocutaneous lesions. Similarly, some of the prevalence studies focused on a specific type of lesions, e.g., xerostomia or rashes ( 21 , 26 ), despite the reviewers improved the risk of bias assessed for some of the included studies ( 19 , 23 , 24 , 26 ).…”

“…A total of 10 studies with information on the prevalence of oral manifestations in COVID-19 were identified (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27), with a total of patients included in these studies was 3,519. Three reported the number of patients with oral lesions in general (18,22,25), four gave the number of patients with xerostomia (18,20,21,23), and four mentioned the number of patients with aphthous lesions (19,22,25,27).…”

“…The risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklists for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data, and then, the reviewers examined and finalized the results of the assessment. Overall, 10 prevalence studies were assessed (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). In two study, the risk of bias was determined as low (22,23), in five studies as moderate (18,20,25,27), and in three as high (19,24,26).…”

“…Overall, 10 prevalence studies were assessed (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). In two study, the risk of bias was determined as low (22,23), in five studies as moderate (18,20,25,27), and in three as high (19,24,26). The risk of bias assessment and the reasons for the upgraded assessments are given in the Supplementary Material 5.…”